ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Effect of oral care protocol with versus without chlorhexidine on mortality of mechanically ventilated patients: Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting Risk and Impact Measures in Nursing Research: Implications for Evidence-based Practice.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2026Review
- Comments on "Effect of oral care protocol with versus without chlorhexidine on mortality of mechanically ventilated patients: Prospective randomized controlled trial".Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: For oral care and prevention of ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), chlorhexidine gluconate is the commonly used antiseptic solution. Recent studies, however, have shown uncertainty regarding its benefit, with some reporting increased mortality in patients. Material and Methods: This randomised controlled study was performed on 154 patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. The patients were randomised into two study groups; in Group I oral care was provided with chlorhexidine gluconate solution, and in Group II a comprehensive oral care protocol that omitted chlorhexidine was adopted. The primary outcome of the study was patient outcome at 14 days after enrolment and secondary outcomes included incidence of VAP and oral health assessment. Results: We found that the oral hygiene in the study groups was comparable. The incidence of VAP was significantly higher in Group I as compared to Group II (40.2% vs 23.3%; Conclusion: A comprehensive oral care regime consisting of mechanical disruption of dental plaque, moisturization of lips and oral cavity compared to chlorhexidine -based oral care is found to be more effective in reducing VAP in mechanically ventilated patients admitted in a general ICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.